The Anglobitch Thesis contends that the brand of feminism that arose in the Anglosphere (the English-speaking world) in the 1960s has an ulterior misandrist (anti-male) agenda quite distinct from its self-proclaimed role as ‘liberator’ of women.

Friday, 31 December 2010

As most readers will know, I have a deep and abiding interest in Game. Sex is just about the only positive engagement men enjoy with women, so such discussions usually draw a wealth of interest and commentary. Writers like Roissy in DC seem fiercely insistent that women are attracted to 'alpha' virtues such as confidence and high social status. However, it would be interesting to see what they make of the following case - a British 'omega male' who enjoys not only sexual but a great deal of reproductive success:

He has fathered seven children by seven women in just seven years and abandoned each and every one. Dressed in a tracksuit, jobless 24-year-old Keith MacDonald is enough to put women off men for life. Yet, despite his appalling track record, the man dubbed Britain's worst dad is to marry. And, naturally, the happy couple have already started trying for their first baby.

The binman's son, who lives on £44 ($60) a week income support, has never paid a penny towards the upbringing of his children. Nor does he see them. Apparently it is 'too much of a hassle'. But bride-to-be Clare Bryant, 20, is convinced he has changed and says they plan to have two children together.

'Some people say he's a bad dad - and, as he doesn't see his children, for all I know he might be,' she said yesterday. 'But I think he'd be brilliant with our child.'

They first started dating in March when MacDonald bumped into her at Sunderland bus station and asked her out.

'He was drunk, but knew what he was doing, so I said 'yes',' she said.

Three days later the couple boarded a bus and headed to Middlesborough for their first date. He didn't have any money after walking out on his trolley-collecting job in January, so I got us lunch from Greggs (the bakers),' she added. 'He told me he didn't see any of his kids any more, but I wasn't bothered. I was more concerned about the drinking or if he might cheat. Keith said he was a new man though, and I thought he deserved a chance. My mum and stepdad told me I was an idiot. They didn't think he'd change and told me not to let him get me pregnant. After a few months I decided I'd like to have his babies, so there's no point in using condoms now.'

MacDonald proposed in June after buying a £30 ($50) ring she had previously seen in a shop window.

'He said: 'So, do you fancy it? I agreed right away,' added Miss Bryant. 'I want two or three bridesmaids, and I'd love a honeymoon too.'

The couple have since moved in together in a two bedroom council (Housing Project) house in Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, and are applying for joint benefits of around £100 ($150) a week - leaving the taxpayer to pick up the £60,000 ($100,000) bill for his seven children.

'I can keep an eye on him now,' said Miss Bryant, who is also unemployed. 'We only go out to the pub twice a week, and Keith only has one or two pints. Every morning, I watch a few hours of telly, while Keith surfs the web. Then we go around town, and every now and then pop into the JobCentre, but there's never anything going. We'll keep going though, because we want to save for our wedding.'

MacDonald first had sex at the age of 10 and boasts that he has since slept with 40 women - even claiming to be 'a sex god on £40 ($60) a week'. He first became a father at the age of 15 when his then girlfriend, Michelle Purvis, now 31, gave birth to his now nine-year-old daughter, Jamie Leigh. When they split up he met Charlotte Anderson, now 24, who fell pregnant with daughter, Kady, now seven.

MacDonald then met Jordan Banks who was just 15 when he got her pregnant. They had a son together, Angelis, who is now six years old. June Garrick, now 25, gave birth to his fourth child, Brandon, in October 2003 - just a month after Angelis was born. Then, in 2006, he met 17 year old Stephanie Jubb at a bus stop. She gave birth to their son Matt, who is now three.

When their short-lived romance came to an end he started dating Stacey Barker, now 21, who fell pregnant and gave birth to his third daughter, Emily, now two. His seventh child was born after a brief romance with Bec Wright, now 21, who gave birth to Clio, now one. By the time all of the children are 16 the total bill to the taxpayer will be in excess of £1 ($1.5) million.

MacDonald told Closer magazine: 'When I got with Clare I was downing 12 cans of lager a day. Now I've quit booze and I'm looking for a job. I'll never stray again. Clare says if I go out with my mates I'll just get myself into trouble, so I don't mind staying in with her.'

So - what is the secret of MacDonald's romantic success? Is it his good looks and buffed physique that is generating all these conquests? No - unless the camera is a pathological liar, I don't think so. Could he be the master of some field of science, philosophy or the fine arts, whose dazzling repartee is winning all these female hearts? Well, considering he has no qualifications of any kind, that is decidedly unlikely. Is it sheer wealth - the dazzle of his sequinned lifestyle -that is turning their heads? The fact that he lives on the desultory sum of 60 dollars a week tends to refute that interpretation. Is it his animal confidence on the Serengeti of life that wins womanly approval? Aye, even the coldest woman's heart is often won by the sight of raw courage - surely that's the answer? Hmmm, he looks like he has never thrown a punch in anger, so probably not. Is it his steely self-possession that draws admiring eyes? Considering he drinks twelve cans of beer a day and has never held a serious job, that is also most unlikely.

I recall an interesting discussion on Scarecrow's blog, wherein a Roissy-inspired American PUA took him to task for questioning whether Charles Manson was an alpha in any shape, sense or form. The Gamester's general argument seemed to be that, because Manson somehow garnered a harem of adoring females who were prepared to kill for him, he must automatically be an alpha. I suspect that many PUA's parrot this line without really thinking about it too deeply. By their reckoning, MacDonald - a jobless, ugly, ignorant, inbred bum - is also an alpha.

Let's start thinking outside the box for a moment. The 'alpha' theory of Game takes its cue from the quasi-science of evolutionary psychology. Nothing wrong in that - the Darwinian paradigm is supported by a good deal of tangential evidence. However, it assumes (without warrant) that female preference had a large part to play in shaping male behaviours during human biological history, and that female preference has been shaped by evolutionary necessity. In this view, all men have to do is mimic the 'alpha' archetype embedded in female preference and they will get sex. However, it is quite possible that the well-attested evidence for unequal male reproductive success in pre-civilized eras might derive from intra-male competition and subsequent sexual coercion of unwilling females rather than females selecting males as reproductive partners, as such. If this coercive theory were true, there would be little reason for women to 'evolve' any such 'alpha' archetype, since their views would have counted for little in intra-male struggles for sex. Further, we might expect women to have rather limited sexual drives and interests, since their evolution would be pointless - their preferences would be entirely obviated by the fact of post-conquest sexual coercion.

And frankly, this is what we tend to find (or rather, what serious researchers tend to find). Professor Glenn Wilson of the University of London opines in The Great Sex Divide that female sexual drives are, at their strongest, merely equivalent to those of males in a non-aroused state. That is, 'sexy' women just feel what men feel on a near continual basis. American sexual research indicates that only a quarter of women enjoy sex, and that three quarters have no sexual feelings. Professor Wilson alludes to research indicating that rural women in Ireland (notably ignorant of Cosmo, Sex and the City and other feminist media) have no concept of sexual pleasure whatsoever. So, far from the 'Gina Tingles' beloved of American PUAs, a reasonably strong case can be made out for women never having 'evolved' a sexual preference, never having had to. And if women never evolved a sexual preference for an ideal male sexual archetype, post-Darwinian 'alpha' Game techniques are probably ineffectual, too.

In short, women don't know what they want. Sex is largely meaningless to them at any deep level, and their aversion/attraction to it the product of rational (i.e. material/cultural) considerations. This would explain the well-worn dictum that sex is the only thing men are completely irrational about, and the only thing women are completely rational about. It also explains why so many women fall prey to gamma/omega males such as Manson or MacDonald. In short, they are not unsung, socially dominant 'alphas' at all, merely 'chancers' with little to lose in today's 'post-marriage' moral climate.

Finally, this 'sexless female' interpretation of gender-relations lends much strength to the Anglobitch Thesis and other 'cultural' interpretations of gender relations. If women in general harbour no deep sexual instincts, how they relate to men becomes crucially determined by the cultural values around them. In the case of Anglo-American women, the repressive, puritanical nature of Anglo-Saxon culture explains far more about their casual misandry than any biologically-ingrained psycho-sexual preference - since the latter does not exist, as such.

Suspected wife-beaters could be banned from their homes for up to four weeks even if there is insufficient evidence for them to be charged under plans unveiled by Home Secretary Theresa May.

The "go orders" will enable police to step in and ban suspected attackers from the victim's home even if they are too afraid of taking action themselves or if no criminal proceedings are possible.

The year-long pilot scheme, which will start next summer in Greater Manchester, Wiltshire and West Mercia, comes as the Government prepares to publish its plans to crack down on violence against women and girls.

A court will then be able to extend the domestic violence protection order, known as go orders, for a longer period, usually between 14 and 28 days.

Figures from the British Crime Survey showed more than one in four women in the UK will (allegedly) experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, with one million women experiencing at least one incident of domestic violence every year and one in 20 becoming a victim of stalking.

SOURCE: UK Daily Mail

There we have it - decisive evidence that 'Conservative' Anglo governments harbour the same rabid loathing of men as their socialist counterparts. Indeed, it must be said that Anglo-Saxon 'conservatism' is ultimately more oppressive than its socialist counterpart, since it considers women untouchable by virtue of their sexual 'ownership'.

Moreover, Anglo-American 'conservatives' - be it American Republicans or British/Commonwealth Tories - are intrinsically aligned with Anglo-Saxon puritanism, a 'traditional' Anglosphere value. And as we all know, this puritanism is at the root of the anti-male, pro-female agenda that defines the English-speaking world. The results of this alignment are twofold:

1. Conservative misandry has much greater leverage than its socialist counterpart. That is, conservative misandry can mobilise every aspect of society - law, politics, the media, mass opinion - to promote its oppressive agenda. That is certainly true in this case, where men's basic human rights are instantly waived at the bequest of rabid feminists with the full and uncritical support of the mainstream media, the police and legal profession. The same is true of VAWA in the United States, advanced with the full connivance of the 'Conservative' Republicans.

2. From a hegemonic perspective, it legitimises misandry. That is, by presenting misandry as a traditional agenda, it covers Anglo-American man-hatred with a patina of respectability, even 'normality'. Were Britain's Labour Party advancing these misandrist 'measures', none of this would apply. Consequently, conservative misandry can push a whole society towards pandemic man-hatred in a way socialist misandry never could.

Of course, the whole notion that there is a need to 'crack down on violence against women and girls' is a vast misnomer, since men are at far greater risk of violence than women in every Anglosphere country. Besides, anti-female domestic violence is more often than not the product of female lifestyle choices - women prefer thugs to decent males because of the 'excitement' they bring to a relationship. Well, if women like 'excitement' so much, why interfere with their 'choices'? They want it all, so let them have it - including black eyes, split lips and fractured skulls.

Saturday, 18 December 2010

As is generally known, Anglo-American women can now commit serious crimes with virtual impunity. Since they acquired 'rights' to go with their privileges in the late 1950s, courts across the Anglosphere have cowered before their lies, sadism and drink-fuelled violence. There can be little doubt that this moral cowardice has contributed to the two crimes described below.

Case Number 1: Robbery of a Blind Man in Coventry, England

A 61-year-old blind man was robbed of £4,000 ($7,000) by a group of women in a "sick and heartless" crime, police have said.

The theft happened in Coventry city centre on Tuesday, shortly after the man had withdrawn the money from the Nationwide in Broadgate at around 2pm.

A West Midlands Police spokeswoman said: "He was possibly followed out of the bank by three women who distracted him by taking him into a number of shops, asking him to try coats on.

"The man was left very disorientated when the women left him and found he had had the cash cut out of his coat pocket."

Pc Mick Rhodes said: "This is a despicable crime. To prey on a vulnerable person like this is sick and heartless. Not only was he robbed, he was left very disorientated and distressed.

"I would encourage anyone with information about this theft to call us and remind anyone planning to take extra cash out of the bank over Christmas to be vigilant."

SOURCE: UK Wakefield Express

What amuses me about this case is that, despite the hysterical response of the British press to this hideous crime, if the miscreants are ever caught (a big 'if', considering the relative indifference of the authorities to crime committed against males) the legal profession will no doubt hand out only the most perfunctory sentences in honour of their age and sex. Which leads us to case number two, where a murderess has been wrongly convicted of manslaughter, not murder, and will receive a far lighter sentence as a result.

A former public schoolgirl who hurled homophobic abuse at a gay civil servant before kicking and stamping on him during a deadly attack is behind bars.

Ruby Thomas, 18, was found guilty of the manslaughter of 62-year-old Ian Baynham, who died 18 days after the drink-fuelled assault in London's Trafalgar Square.

Police later found his blood smeared on her handbag and the ballet pumps she was wearing as she kicked him.

The court heard she smiled as she "put the boot into" Mr Baynham after he was knocked to the ground by another teenager, Joel Alexander.

Thomas's ex-boyfriend told the Old Bailey that the blonde teenager, of Anerley, south east London, was "not the type of girl" to have done it. But jurors did not agree and convicted her of manslaughter, along with Alexander, 20, of Thornton Heath, south east London.

A third defendant, 18-year-old Rachael Burke, of Upper Norwood, south east London, was found guilty of affray at an earlier trial. All three will be sentenced on January 26. Thomas and Alexander were remanded in custody after Judge Richard Hawkins refused to continue their bail applications by their barristers.

Thomas, a former pupil at the £12,000-a-year ($20,000) Sydenham High School for Girls, had a previous record for violence. She was just 15 when she assaulted a bus driver in Northumberland Avenue in December 2007, a short walk from where the attack on Mr Baynham took place.

On that night in September last year she was said to have been "off her face", acting in a "lairy, mouthy" way, and flirting with random men.

The court heard that Thomas screamed "fucking faggots" at the victim and his friend Philip Brown. When Mr Baynham confronted her, there was a scuffle during which she hit him with her handbag and he grabbed it.

Alexander then ran up and knocked him to the ground, causing a severe brain injury as his head struck the pavement. Mr Brown said his friend "fell like a corpse", hitting his head on the pavement with a "crunching noise". Blood was pouring from his head.

SOURCE: MSN News

Which just goes to show, you can educate her in an expensive private school but it really is impossible to reform the Anglobitch. The well-attested Anglo-Saxon Pedestal Syndrome is directly responsible for crimes of this nature. Anglo females are essentially above the law, and this has abetted the Anglobitch thuggery currently submerging the Anglosphere. If repeatedly stomping on a man's head isn't murder, what is?

The second case also encapsulates the vicious cowardice so characteristic of young Anglo women. They stalk the streets stirring up trouble, secure in the knowledge that if any male defends himself against their violent abuse, some White Knight thug will come to their rescue. This certainly happened in this case. Ruby Thomas abused the two men who then defended themselves, whereupon her 'boyfriend' (i.e. White Knight thug) knocked one of them to the ground. While he was chivalrous enough to stay back from the fallen man, the two drunken females could not resist the overmastering urge to kick and stamp him to death. This case shows the visceral hatred of men that festers in the lizard brain of the rampant Anglobitch, forever seeking violent expression.

Finally, the homophobic aspect of this crime is illuminating. Homosexual males generally view women as 'oppressed' fellow travellers in the contemporary Anglosphere (quite mistakenly, in our opinion). After all, Anglo-American women derive all their status from a culture of sexual scarcity that sets them on pedestals and gifts them manipulative power over men. Homosexual men challenge this sexual monopoly by mere virtue of their sexual independence. Little wonder, then, that the Anglobitch attacks such males with the same rabid ferocity she deploys against heterosexual MRAs. Both groups threaten the Pedestal, so both groups must perish: in the Anglobitch mind, the solution is simple. And with the aid of the ever-willing White Knight thug they can effortlessly turn this agenda into brutal, uncompromising reality.

Wednesday, 15 December 2010

Melanie Phillips is a British Sunday Times and Daily Mail columnist. In this thought-provoking piece, she describes the condition of males in contemporary Britain - outrageously oppressed in legal, political and cultural terms:

Why is the British Establishment so Anti-Male?

A SURVEY into women's attitudes this week exploded the official line that they are vulnerable to sexual harassment at work. Women may not be universally the victims they are painted.

Yet one of the many mysteries of our age is why the British establishment has declared open season upon half the human race. It is men who are being systematically robbed of their reputation, their children and their purpose in life.

The people responsible for this sexual warfare are sober women and men in suits - pinstripe, rather than boiler - not to mention wigs and gowns.

If what is routinely thrown at men was directed at any of our fabled victim groups - women, black people, gays - society would stand condemned of the most vile prejudice, discrimination and even persecution.

Yet the vast majority of people either don't know how the dice are being loaded against men or, if they do have an inkling, think deep down (or not so deep) that, well, they really do deserve it.

You think this is exaggerated?

Consider the review of sexual offences which is about to be published.

Through judicious leaks, the Government has indicated that it wants to toughen up the rape law because not enough men are being convicted. So it intends to skew court proceedings against them to make them less able to defend themselves against a prosecution.

Just think about that for a moment. Suppose the Government said, for example, that not enough women were being convicted of shoplifting so it was going to make it more difficult for them to mount a defence.

Unthinkable, isn't it?

That's because the implication that women were naturally shoplifters would be preposterous, that artificially inflating the number of convictions for shoplifting to fit this false stereotype would be grotesque, and that it could be done only by junking our most precious legal maxim: that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Yet this is precisely what is being proposed in rape cases.

The Government intends to change the definition of consent to sex, the common defence against the charge of rape, so the defendant will have to prove that the woman did, in fact, consent.

LAWYERS are divided over whether this would technically mean reversing the burden of proof. All agree, however, that it would make it much more difficult for a man accused of rape to defend himself. And that's because the Government assumes that all men accused of rape are guilty.

In fact, the evidence suggests this is completely untrue. Home Office figures for 1996 showed that 25pc of rapes reported to the police were false or malicious, or the complainant withdrew the charge.

In a further 39 pc of reported cases, the police or the Crown Prosecution Service took no further action because the complainant and suspect knew each other and so the circumstances were ambiguous. And a further 7 pc of cases resulted in an acquittal.

Yet the Government not only fails to acknowledge this, but also uses statistical jiggerypokery to produce a false picture of soaring rapes and thousands of rapists escaping conviction.

True, there was a fall in the conviction rate from 24 pc in 1985 to 9 pc in 1997. Yet that may be because freer sexual behaviour makes rape claims more untenable.

While 'stranger rapes' are rare, 'date rapes' between acquaintances soared from 1,300 in 1985 to 5,000 in 1996, almost half of all reported cases.

Rape is without doubt a most heinous crime. Yet most reasonable people would probably think that being jumped on in a dark alley is a completely different matter from having second thoughts, sometimes in retrospect, about a bloke with whom you've gone home after a party or with whom you've already been sleeping.

Anti-man prejudice, in fact, runs through government thinking. Baroness Jay and her Women's Unit constantly bring out the old chestnut that one woman in four is assaulted by her partner.

In fact, most British domestic violence studies on which the Government relies for such claims are effectively rigged; they ask only women, not men, for their domestic violence experiences, mainly from self-selecting samples of abused women.

Yet reputable international research shows overwhelmingly that acts of domestic violence are initiated by women upon men at least as frequently as vice versa.

Asked why the Women's Unit had made no reference to all this research, Jay replied that the Government couldn't get involved in such 'subtle' issues.

Instead, it resorts to unsubtle threats to pursue feckless 'deadbeat dads' for child support, promoting the impression that fathers routinely desert their children.

In fact, many fathers desperately want to continue to parent their children after divorce, but find that the courts put huge obstacles in their way, even if the men have acted blamelessly.

Family court judges tend to force fathers to prove they are fit parents, prove they are not violent or feckless. By contrast, they assume that a mother is generally the best parent for the child to live with, regardless of how she has behaved.

Of course, some men do behave very badly towards their wives and children.

Divorce barristers, however, estimate that no more than about a third of the husbands they see are violent, and that women and men cheat on each other in equal proportions.

YET THE courts are institutionally biased against husbands, ousting them from their homes on the slightest pretext, stripping a man of his children and his assets even if his wife has gone off with a lover and his own behaviour has been exemplary.

The judges will also accept a wife's claims that the man is violent on the basis of no evidence, in a system where it is impossible to mount a proper cross-examination of her allegations. Yet on this pretext they will deprive a man of contact with his children.

Lack of contact with their children is a source of immense injustice and misery for many fathers.

Lawyers say a typical scenario is this. Mother decides to divorce because she's got a new man. The easiest way to get rid of the father is to claim he's been violent to her or the children. The father leaves or is ousted. His access to the children is governed by a contact order made by the court on the advice of a court welfare officer.

Yet the mother has the whip hand in controlling the father's contact. He finds regularly that the children are too busy to see him. Yet somehow the mother seems able to persuade the court that she is entitled to move the contact goalposts without redress.

The new president of the High Court's family division, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, denied earlier this year that fathers got an unfair deal on contact although, she added ambiguously, a small minority of non-custodial fathers 'gave rise to real problems'.

How could she possibly be so complacent when fathers are routinely denied contact on grounds produced by welfare officers that are so spurious as to be incomprehensible?

There was the father who, in McDonald's, spread his arms to his daughter and said 'Bet you haven't seen me in a suit before', a watching welfare officer misinterpreted the gesture, decided the child had refused to return the father's proffered embrace, and he was denied all contact with the child as a result.

Then there was the father whose overnight contact with his five-year-old was stopped because 'the child had many milestones ahead of him'; another who was denied contact because he 'had to prove his commitment'; yet another because 'the child fell asleep in his car on the way home'.

One child of 13 hadn't seen his father for eight years because he was led to believe that an injunction against his father prevented it. No one - certainly not his mother - had told him that the injunction would last a maximum of three months and that for most of that eight years he had every right to see his father. And so on and so, appallingly, on.

The impact of fatherlessness upon children is well- documented. The impact on fathers is less well-known.

Some are driven to nervous breakdowns or suicide: others lose their jobs as they try to visit their children who have moved to a different part of the country.

Of course, there are men who walk out on their wives and bust their families. But the majority of men are divorced against their will.

The pain of family breakdown becomes unbearable when compounded by the gross injustice of a legal system that, under cover of impartiality, so often rewards the offending spouse and punishes her victim.

HOW CAN this happen? Welfare officers' conclusions about divorcing spouses are rarely questioned by judges, who regard these officers as the only source of expert advice in such cases.

Until now, they have been probation officers; henceforth, they will also be drawn from the children's branch of the Official Solicitor's Department and from guardians ad litem.

Yet this reform is unlikely to do much to counter their prevailing ethos, encapsulated by a document produced by the National Association of Probation Officers in 1996.

Entitled Equal Rights: Anti-Sexism Policy, this proclaimed that marriage subjected women to male tyranny; that society was based on patriarchal male control over women and children which extended into all institutions; that the oppression of women must be challenged in the courts; and that therefore the aim of the welfare officer was to 'challenge the discrimination against women in contested residence and contact decisions'.

Such sentiments may seem extreme; but the presumption of male violence which underpins them is common throughout the family law system.

The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law said last year that the courts should stop fathers seeing their children simply on the basis of allegations of violence by their ex-wives. The board's extraordinary presumption of male guilt was backed by its claim that domestic violence research indicated 'in the great majority of cases the abuser is male and the victim female', and that fathers were overwhelmingly the perpetrators of domestic violence.

Yet the research certainly does not show this. Most violence against children, moreover, is perpetrated by mothers or boyfriends. A child's natural father is least likely to be violent towards it.

The courts should actually be giving fathers, not mothers, the benefit of the doubt.

Many judges think mothers are intrinsically vulnerable and must be protected, as they are generally to be the parent with care of the children.

Yet why should this be? If a mother has gone off with her lover, jeopardising the wellbeing of her children and demonstrating infidelity to their father, promise-breaking, deceit and selfishness, why should she be automatically regarded as the fitter parent to bring up the children?

The answer is to restore issues of conduct to divorce and the subsequent care of the children. The spurious argument that 'children's needs' must come before any other consideration means children are being used as hostages to protect adults from facing the consequences of their own behaviour.

Children's needs are, in fact, best met by having both their parents to look after them; failing that, by living with the more responsible parent.

This may even bring the divorce rate down, as has happened in American states where mothers no longer get automatic custody.

Men are terrified of being thought prejudiced against women, not least because of an old-fashioned sense of chivalry. They look at the absence of women among captains of industry or MPs; they look at the football hooligan and the burglar from hell, and they think it must be true that men are basically vile victimisers.

But life's a lot more complicated and the result of such browbeating into false stereotypes is that everyone ultimately becomes a loser.

SOURCE: UK Spectator, 2010

My only criticism of this article is its theoretical naivety. Phillips seems surprised that the British Establishment promotes a gender-feminist agenda when, as the source of Anglo-American puritanism, Britain would be expected to embody such national misandry.

Since puritanism reflexively denigrates males as sexualized beings while exalting women as 'owners' of scarce sexual resources, the puritanical meme inevitably promotes misandry in any culture where it takes root. Given this fact, Phillips' list of injustices becomes perfectly explicable. Indeed, we should expect such iniquities to be promoted by the Anglo-American Establishment: where puritanism reigns, men are always oppressed.

Sunday, 5 December 2010

With the Anglosphere's interest in all things British and Royal, a great deal can be gleaned from the recent announcement of the wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton. The press are swooning over Kate's wedding dress, not just in Britain but across the Anglosphere. It were as if we lived in a culture where marriage remained a central feature of British people's lives, when if fact Marriage rates in 2010 are at their lowest since records began:

The number of people getting married has fallen to its lowest level since records began in 1862. For the first time ever fewer than 2 in 100 women, over the age of 16, got married in a single year. In 2008 the marriage rate for women fell from 2 per cent to 1.96 per cent, less than half the rate 25 years ago.

The rate for men has shown a similar decline, according to the annual figures published by the Office for National Statistics. The figures highlight how marriage has substantially fallen out of favour. From a peak in 1940, when 426,1000 young couples – spurred on by the urgency of World War II – married for the first time, just 147,130 marriages in 2008 were where both partners were getting wed for the first time.

In total, just 228,204 marriages took place during 2008 in England and Wales. The escalating cost of weddings, and the failure of the Government to support the institution of marriage were among the factors blamed. Though, long-term changes in society, especially the increase in the number of women working and their desire to get married later in life, are also key factors.

The average age of women marrying for the first time has nearly hit the symbolic 30-year-old barrier, at 29.9, up from 29.8 during 2007. For men, the average age of getting married for the first time was 32.1 years, up from 32 the previous year.

Many expressed sadness at the statistics.

Dave Percival, a campaigner for marriage, said: "Living together and marriage are increasingly seen as the same by the public, yet the outcomes are radically different. Two thirds of all the first marriages in 2008 can be expected to last a lifetime. Less than 10 per cent of cohabiting relationships last even to their tenth anniversary."

SOURCE: Daily Telegraph, 11 February 2010

So, given the fact that we now live in a post-Marriage era (as American Game experts aver), why all the hysteria about this Royal Marriage? I would argue that we are seeing puritanical Anglo-Saxon memes at work. Like the ever-popular Disney franchise in the United States, the British Royal Family is an archaic residue of core Anglo values: repression, puritanism, misandry and feminism (in no particular order). Consequently, it reflexively exalts events and persons who advertise this agenda. Moreover, the popular appeal of such saccharine fairy tales to the Anglo-American masses shows that, in attitudes at least, puritanism is alive and well across the Anglophone world. If it were not, why does the pan-Anglosphere preoccupation with 'white weddings', 'princesses' and 'happy ever after' remain so perennially popular?

Moreover, the marriage gives us a deeper understanding of Anglo feminism. Kate Middleton is a fairly average girl: average looks, average intellect and distinctly average accomplishments. When swept up in the Royal Marriage tornado, however, she suddenly becomes an exalted goddess striding down the aisle of Westminster Abbey in a (faux) virginal white gown, set high above all others. Even Prince William becomes a mere dramatic prop in her all-pervasive psycho-sexual drama - and he is the heir to the throne of England! And so we see who Anglo feminism strives to stifle male sexual self-expression with all the forces at its disposal, why it vilifies male virility at every turn and why it does not differ one jot from Victorian puritanism: because those agendas exalt women and diminish men. It really is that simple. And this is the fountainhead of all that oppresses men in the contemporary Anglosphere. While draconian punishments are meted out to males for the least infraction (or no infraction, in the case of divorced fathers) women are essentially above the law - guiltless goddesses on pedestals, one and all.

But really, given the Royals' abysmal record at long-term relationships (very much in line with the rest of the British population), the likelihood of Kate and William becoming a long-term symbol of wedded bliss are slight indeed. Understandably touchy about this very fact, the British Establishment (composed of women, White Knights and Gay White Knights, from all I can gather) has recently suspended an Anglican Bishop for daring to even mention this possibility:

A leading bishop has been criticised after publicly denouncing Prince William’s engagement to Kate Middleton and predicting that their marriage will only last for seven years.

Canon Peter Bruinvels, a Synod member and former Tory MP, said: “This is deeply disappointing and disrespectful. The Bishop should be reminded that we are an estab­lished Church in which the Monarch plays an integral role.”

The Bishop’s immediate superior, the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, is a close friend of the Prince of Wales and sources have suggested that he may be asked to conduct the wedding service.

But Lambeth Palace played down the furore, insisting that the bishop was “entitled to his views”.

Bishop Broadbent made his comments about the engagement on Facebook, shortly after it had been announced last Tuesday.

He wrote: “Need to work out what date in the spring or ­summer I should be booking my republican day trip to France.”

He went on to say: “I think we need a party in Calais for all good republicans who can't stand the nauseating tosh that surrounds this event.

“I managed to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears (Prince Charles) and the Porcelain Doll (Lady Diana), and hope to avoid this one too.”

He said the wedding should belong to the family, as opposed to becoming "national flim-flam” paid for by tax payers. And he criticised the media for descending into “fawning deferential nonsense”.

“I wish them well, but their nuptials are nothing to do with me,” he wrote. “Leave them to get married somewhere out of the limelight and leave them alone.”

He later added: “I give the marriage seven years.”

Source: UK Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2010

Beneath the predictable Anglo-Saxon hysteria and 'fawning deferential nonsense', of course, lies a very serious ideological agenda. The good Bishop has dared to challenge the inane puritanical meme that still exerts such a pernicious influence over the Anglosphere and for that, he has to be publicly pilloried.

In our view, seven years is rather too long for this marriage; three is a far more accurate assessment. This is largely because Anglo-Saxon repression brings unrealistic expectations to marriage, which is paradoxically why the institution is crumbling across the Anglosphere. It is fanciful and cruel to expect still-virile males to rely on past-prime wives as their sole sexual partners. More rational, less puritanical peoples (the Latins and Japanese, for example) allow husbands sexual escapades beyond matrimony with prostitutes and other women of 'easy virtue'. This erotic pragmatism actually maintains the institution of Marriage by introducing a safety-valve to dissipate accreted sexual tensions. By contrast, Anglo Marriages crumble under the weight of unrealistic, Disneyfied expectations. And then, of course, there is the thorny issue of Anglo men refusing to marry at all for fear of post-divorce penury at the hands of feminist judges...

Thursday, 25 November 2010

In Britain, November 11 is the annual Day of Remembrance for military personnel who died in the two world wars. That date marks the end of World War One, in which Britain lost a million men, the heaviest losses in its long history (though the medieval Wars of the Roses and later English Civil War killed a much higher proportion of its citizens). Poppies are duly worn by all and sundry and wreaths are laid at The Cenotaph and other important public buildings. In Britain and the Commonwealth (Canada, Australia and New Zealand) that conflict has the same impact on the public psyche as America's Civil War - a disastrous 'war to end all wars'.

The warrior's craft is intrinsically respectable and the bravery of Anglo-American troops commendable. Indeed, some military organizations from the Anglosphere have won eternal renown - England's New Model Army and the Confederacy's Army of Northern Virginia, to name but two. However, in the present socio-political context it must be said that no credible MRA should consider military service as a career option, for a number of reasons I will outline.

While First World War German recruitment posters emphasised comradeship and national responsibility, Anglosphere recruiting posters invoked women - appropriately enough, given Anglo-Saxon deference to women and their ubiquitous exaltation on pedestals. Further, women are a fitting symbol of the Anglosphere, since the Anglo-Saxon world is essentially a matriarchy in all respects - women have all the rights, no responsibilities and receive preferential treatment in education, before the law and throughout the media.

Despite the Anglo-Saxon focus on women in recruiting posters and other propaganda, Anglo women are notable for their absolute indifference to returning 'heroes'. Of course, this is a function of their sexual selfishness and unconscious contempt for men. When soldiers return home, where are those cheering, flag-waving maidens? The English World War One poet Wilfred Owen summed them up well:

Disabled

He sat in a wheeled chair, waiting for dark,And shivered in his ghastly suit of grey,Legless, sewn short at elbow. Through the parkVoices of boys rang saddening like a hymn,Voices of play and pleasure after day,Till gathering sleep had mothered them from him.

About this time Town used to swing so gayWhen glow-lamps budded in the light blue trees,And girls glanced lovelier as the air grew dim, -In the old times, before he threw away his knees.Now he will never feel again how slimGirls' waists are, or how warm their subtle hands.All of them touch him like some queer disease.

There was an artist silly for his face,For it was younger than his youth, last year.Now, he is old; his back will never brace;He's lost his colour very far from here,Poured it down shell-holes till the veins ran dry,And half his lifetime lapsed in the hot raceAnd leap of purple spurted from his thigh.

One time he liked a blood-smear down his leg,After the matches, carried shoulder-high.It was after football, when he'd drunk a peg,He thought he'd better join. - He wonders why.Someone had said he'd look a god in kilts,That's why; and maybe, too, to please his Meg,Aye, that was it, to please the giddy jiltsHe asked to join. He didn't have to beg;Smiling they wrote his lie: aged nineteen years.

Germans he scarcely thought of; all their guilt,And Austria's, did not move him. And no fearsOf Fear came yet. He thought of jewelled hiltsFor daggers in plaid socks; of smart salutes;And care of arms; and leave; and pay arrears;Esprit de corps; and hints for young recruits.And soon, he was drafted out with drums and cheers.

Some cheered him home, but not as crowds cheer Goal.Only a solemn man who brought him fruitsThanked him; and then enquired about his soul.

Now, he will spend a few sick years in institutes,And do what things the rules consider wise,And take whatever pity they may dole.Tonight he noticed how the women's eyesPassed from him to the strong men that were whole.How cold and late it is! Why don't they comeAnd put him into bed? Why don't they come?

Let all young fellows consider these lines well. Anglo women won't reward a returning soldier with sex, especially if he is crippled or mentally damaged. Instead, they will handle him like a 'queer disease' (if they stoop to touching him at all). In Germany after World War One (and some experts consider Germany a part of the Anglosphere), young whores were stepping over legless heroes begging on the side-walk, for all their medals. More recently - last week, in fact - we had more evidence of the Anglo-American female's profound gratitude for male military sacrifice:

Wolverhampton cenotaph vandal's mum billed for £780

A mum who shopped her daughter for vandalising a war memorial was landed with a £780 bill to remove the obscene graffiti yesterday. The 14-year-old girl was given a nine-month referral order after admitting she sprayed the memorial with bright pink graffiti - daubing a crudely-drawn penis and the words "I love Luke x".

But after the case Royal British Legion volunteer worker Mike Morris claimed the sentence was too soft. Mike, 69, said: "Really she's not had a punishment, it's her mum that's had to bear it."

Veterans were reduced to tears by the damage to Wolverhampton's cenotaph last month. The girl was caught when her mum found a paint can in her bag. Passing sentence at the city's youth court, JP Sandy Gough told the girl: "I think it's a despicable act that you did at the memorial."

The girl, who cannot be named, said: "I'm disgusted with myself."

SOURCE: The UK Daily Mirror

Of course, that is just how women are. We cannot blame rats for living in a sewer. However, the self-aware Anglo-American male can use his knowledge of their selfish iniquity to negotiate a more constructive lifestyle for himself - one that avoids the tender mercies of the Anglobitch. Instead of wasting his time defending the misandrist Anglosphere, he must withdraw all consent from Anglo-American civilization and turn to new, foreign horizons for life, work and sex.

Increased male singleness across the Anglosphere has opened men's eyes to female insolence and ingratitude. When males were married or in relationships (or at least sought those outcomes) they could hardly afford such clear-eyed objectivity. However, the 'new male realism' has fed a number of post-feminist agendas, including the Men's Rights Movement. The old Anglo propaganda exhorting men to defend 'precious' Anglobitches is certainly wearing very thin - since female approval no longer matters, smart middle-class men across the Anglosphere now consider military 'White Knighting' the height of folly.

Indeed, those Anglo nations with active military commitments are lowering intellectual requirements for new inductees to near-subnormal levels. Not only is the Anglosphere witnessing a Marriage Strike in response to feminism, but quite possibly an Intelligence Strike too (somewhat akin to the elite's 'opt-out' in Ayn Rand's magnificent Atlas Shrugged).

Simply put, smart Anglo-American guys are no longer willing to risk life and limb for ungrateful, misandrist Anglobitches who despise men and deface war memorials. The word is out, as with marriage and chivalry: stay on the outside, never commit. In any case, contemporary wars to defend the Anglosphere are wars to defend matriarchal misandry, a Kulturkampf directed specifically against men. Why should men take part? It's women's agenda, let them fight for it. As ever for the Anglo-American male, progress depends on unlearning everything he has been told about Anglo women.

Wednesday, 17 November 2010

The execrable David Futrelle recently 'subjected' one of my posts to scathing and ignorant 'rebuttal'. However, his schoolboy attempts to comprehend (let alone rebut) my arguments merely highlighted the shortcomings of this errant White Knight. His puerile efforts were not wasted, however. Obscurely, Futrelle's ignorance illuminates certain features of the Anglobitch Thesis, while simultaneously showcasing the extent of his own folly.

Although clearly a liberal progressive, Futrelle displays the same pro-female self-abasement that defines Anglo-American conservatives like Thomas Fleming. One wonders whether this tendency has masochistic undertones - and whether his public utterances partake of a troubled private life.

Below, I engage with Futrelle's piece point by point. I don't see a single valid point in his juvenile fulminations, let alone authentic understanding of my position.

1. Introductions

The fellow behind the charmingly named Anglobitch blog -- devoted to the notion that "Anglo-American Women Suck!" -- has delivered up a rambling, loopy rant about hate crime legislation, which essentially suggests that the very existence of such legislation reflects an "inherent, all-pervasive hatred of men" in the "Anglosphere."

Florid references to a "rambling, loopy rant" indicate a specious argument is on the way - and David does not disappoint. After all, he misrepresents my argument from the first. I do not say hate crime legislation is inherently misandrist, I merely argue that men are seldom (if ever) beneficiaries of it, when considered solely as MEN... yet, as numerous examples demonstrate, men ARE extensively discriminated against as MEN, for example in the media and before the law. Far from decrying hate crime legislation, I call for its extension to protect men as men. And why is Anglosphere mockingly enclosed in speech marks? Isn't David aware that many reputable academics in economics, law and politics accept that the English-speaking nations are bound by more than language? Ask a silly question...

2. Murdoch's Agenda

His first example of this is ... Rupert Murdoch's media empire. I'm not sure exactly when Murdoch was promoted from media mogul to head of state, but never mind...

Murdoch does not need to be elected as head of state to promote the latent misandry implicit in pan-Anglosphere civilization. I think Futrelle is getting confused by structural/cultural issues (somewhat expected, since he is confused by most things). Anglo culture and its puritanical memes will utilize the media to promote its agendas, whether Murdoch or his minions are aware of it or not. Since Murdoch is the Anglosphere's premier media mogul, his media empire necessarily promotes the core memes of Anglo culture, prominent among which are misandry and soft-feminism. Nor is this mere conceptual rhetoric on my part - Nathanson and Young's excellent study Spreading Misandry: the Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture proves beyond doubt the presence of misandrist agendas in the Anglo-American media. Murdoch's lurid offerings are not exceptional, but certainly characteristic.

I don't remember there being a lot of Jews at the top of the Nazi party. But it seems like every time I turn on Fox News I see someone from "the outcast group (in this case, men)" spewing what to the untrained ear sounds like reactionary nonsense. (I mean, there's Gretchen Carlson, but she's got to share the set with Steve Doocy and that other dude.) But apparently I can't see Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck for what they are: footsoldiers of our feminazi overlords. Er, overladies? Overwomyn?

But 'reactionary nonsense' is, in the Anglo-American context, closely allied with feminism. This is because 'traditional' Anglo-Saxon culture, being puritanical and repressive, reflexively vilifies men and exalts women. Because these presenters are men forwarding a nominally 'conservative' agenda does not make them opponents of feminists, or automatic allies of ordinary men. The British 'Conservative' party recently retracted its earlier pledge to grant accused males anonymity in rape cases, under 'pressure' from left-wing feminists. Is Futrelle really trying to tell us that - were Madeleine McCann a male, working class child - the British media (including Murdoch's) would have batted an eyelid? Is he really that stupid? Isn't Missing White Woman Syndrome a self-evident fact in the Anglo media? Moreover, one that neatly conflates endemic Anglo misandry, racism and puritanism.

Further, Futrelle's distasteful observation about there being few Jews at the top of the Nazi party is irrelevant (and possibly wrong, as someone pointed out). There are many historical examples of people oppressing and abusing their own kind. Does he really think that, in Medieval England, all the male peasants were 'high-fiving' with the Lords, presenting a united bloc to oppress women and gays? What nonsense: most men throughout 'patriarchal' history enjoyed few or no rights, with the added dangers of gendercide and conscription.

3. Legal Matters

Apparently divorce law is so biased towards women that: many Anglo-American women consciously plan for a 'starter marriage' to fleece some unsuspecting male [which] proves that malicious misandry is rapidly becoming a female lifestyle-choice.

Well, so it is. That's why American men don't get married, any more. But it's worse than that, David...

A waiter who married Italian multi-millionairess but had to return to waiting tables after their relationship collapsed is seeking to overturn a "manifestly unjust" divorce settlement under which he is forced to pay her maintenance.

Francesco Traversa's marriage to Carla Freddi ended after 20 years in 2008 and he was ordered to pay her maintenance and vacate the home they shared despite the "enormous" divide in their wealth, top judges were told.

But now, in a case which puts both prenuptial agreements and sexual equality under the spotlight, he is arguing his treatment was "manifestly unjust" - and would never have been meted out had he been a woman.

Mr Traversa, 51 - a restaurant waiter from a "modest" background - in 1987 married Miss Freddi, 45, an independently wealthy member of a monied family of industrialists, with a personal fortune estimated at between £1.7m and £4.2m.

Ms Freddi relocated to London where the couple had two children and the first of a series of restaurants in the capital, financed by Ms Freddi's family money, was opened in 1993.

In 2008 Ms Freddi divorced Mr Traversa, of (25) Conniscliffe Road, Palmer's Green, north London, in an Italian court, which - after taking a prenuptial agreement into account - ordered him to leave their matrimonial home in London where he had lived for eight years.

On top of that, he was "required to pay maintenance to his wife, despite her enormous economic advantages," his barrister, Frank Feehan QC, told London's Civil Appeal Court, and is now almost £57,000 in debt to her.

Mr Traversa is now trying to win financial relief in England, but has already been rebuffed by a High Court family judge, despite arguments that "Mr Traversa was economically dependant on Ms Freddi" and that "were the husband a woman" the outcome would have been very different.

Source: Daily Telegraph, 17th November

And there we have it, the 'patriarchal', 'misogynist' machinery of western (and Anglo-American) law in operation. Divorced female millionaires take maintenance from waiters while divorced male millionaires end up on Skid Row... ho hum.

4. Welfare and Conscription

After a brief denunciation of the welfare state -- men pay the taxes and women benefit! -- Anglobitcher comes to the US military draft, for which only males have to register "despite them being tacitly viewed as Untermenschen by law, government and the media." Hey, I didn't like having to register, and I don't think any one of either sex should have to, but, uh, no one has been drafted in the US since the Vietnam war.

I do not denounce the Welfare State as such, merely the fact that women are its primary beneficiaries (that's why 95% of the UK homeless are male, David, a figure doubtless echoed across the Anglosphere) while males are its primary contributors (at least don't deny the feminists' awful 'wage gap' - even though it is the fruit of too many female toilet-roll 'degrees' in flower-arranging and Womyn's Studies).

Whether anyone has been drafted since Vietnam is irrelevant. You really mean, no one has been drafted YET, but that might well change. I doubt David will be feeling such a chipper mangina after losing both his legs to a Taliban roadside bomb in Afghanistan, although it would furnish us all with considerable amusement... specially after his 'caring' Anglo-American feminists leave him sexually disenfranchised for the rest of his days (a 'loser'). But I digress... the US male-only draft remains a potent symbolic weapon held against men, tacitly telling them: women have rights, you have obligations. And this mantra is echoed everywhere in American society. A footnote: American female 'conservatives' fight the female draft tooth and nail, while reaping the many benefits of post-feminism. Again we see Anglo-American 'conservatism' in its true, misandrist light - a heady cocktail of feminist self-interest and semantic manipulation.

5. Try Conclusions

So the first of his examples of state oppression is based on the idea that Rupert Murdoch is The State, not to mention some sort of feminazi. And his last is based on guys having to sign what is for all practical purposes a meaningless scrap of paper. The Anglobitcher nevertheless concludes "that males represent the primary victims of 'hate crime' across the Anglosphere."

David's adumbration is so riddled with conceptual errors it is actually amusing... vaguely. Nowhere do I say Murdoch is the State, although his media empire abets the misandrist, pro-female agendas shared by all Anglo-American States. He is not a conscious left-liberal feminazi, but his media promote feminazism, anyway - by complexity-driven social processes and mere replication of puritanical, Anglo-American memes implicit in the dominant culture.

6. Homophobia

Oh, but he's not quite done. For what angry denunciation of hate crime laws is complete without, you know, some good old-fashioned homophobia, served with a side order of transsexual-bashing: It is also telling that the only male groups effectively protected by pan-Anglosphere hate-crime laws are gays and transsexuals. This is entirely to be expected: such males simulate the female role which, as we have endlessly observed, is routinely and blindly exalted by Anglo-Saxon culture. When the only way for men to achieve protection from 'hate crime' is to adopt homosexuality (or female genitalia) the true nature of Anglo 'patriarchy' reveals itself. Only women and their mincing mimics can enter that charmed circle; the healthy, potent male never can.

Note my words: adopt homosexuality. Anglo-American homosexuality (especially its English variant) is a cultural, not a biological product. The biologically-determined male homosexual is the product of late birth order and hormonal levels in the womb altering the foetus' brain structure. However, due to repression, misandry and feminism, many males in Anglo countries adopt homosexual lifestyles contrary to their true heterosexual nature. For example, many English privately-educated males report homosexual orientation in post-adolescence, due the homosocial nature of the schools they attend. While biologically-ordained homosexuality can be seen as a natural outcome, the culturally-determined form so common in Anglo countries must be seen as a dysfunction since it warps an individual's true nature. This insidious perversion of native instinct is identical to feeding a rabbit meat, or a wolf carrots. My use of the term 'healthy' merely denotes a male who eschews the sickly, culturally-determined homosexual role, not all homosexuals. Indeed, I broadly approve of full civil rights for all gay people. Speaking of homosexuality, Futrelle might do well to address the rabid homophobia that characterizes Anglo-American women in general, including feminists. This arises from their primordial fear of sexual redundancy (a natural corollary of male sexual freedom), a fact even admitted by Andrea Dworkin in Right Wing Women.

Thus, my 'healthy potent male' is not presented in conceptual opposition to biologically-configured transsexuals and homosexual males (thus connoting them as 'unhealthy'), but only their culturally-shaped facsimiles. All other conceptual oppositions exist only in Futrelle's fevered and uninformed imagination.

Saturday, 13 November 2010

The Anglobitch Thesis is unique among MRA theories in that, being cultural, it transcends the vagaries of politics. In our view, there is no difference between pan-Anglosphere conservatism or liberalism, at least on men's issues. Both political wings are inherently misandrist and matriarchal, because the Anglo-Saxon cultural architecture underlying both is misandrist and matriarchal.

Now we have thunderous confirmation of the Anglobitch Thesis in the British Conservative government's climbdown on the issue of male anonymity in rape cases. Predictably, the government crumbled before 'pressure' from 'feminist Labour MPs', despite Labour having been routed in a General Election this year. Ever and again we hear 'conservative' MRAs rambling on about 'Marxist-Feminism', wilfully refusing to acknowledge the rabid misandry that also characterizes pan-Anglosphere conservatism (consider the recent American calls for bans on porn and masturbation).

I am getting tired of repeating this - but I will do, anyway: men cannot look to Anglo-Saxon conservatism for help. Anglo-Saxon conservatives extol a sexless, repressive puritanism that reflexively vilifies men as sexual beings. Women, on the other hand, being sexually disinterested and manipulative, are reflexively set upon pedestals of deference and virtue whatever their conduct. While this misandrist agenda also characterizes Anglo-American left-liberalism, Anglo conservatives - being closer to the traditional puritan meme - fully embody these iniquities.

Anyway, here is the sorry tale:

Plans to give anonymity to men charged with rape were abandoned yesterday (12th November 2010). The decision marks a dramatic U-turn and abandons a key pledge in the Government’s coalition agreement.

Justice Minister Crispin Blunt announced the proposal would be ditched because there was not sufficient evidence to justify a change in the law. But at the same time he published a report which revealed that between eight and 11 per cent of rape claims are fabricated.

Just 36 per cent of rape trials result in a rape conviction and more than half result in no conviction at all, even for a lesser offence. That fuelled accusations last night that the Government had caved in to a chorus of protests from women’s groups and Labour (Democrat) MPs.

Women who accuse a man of rape will continue to receive anonymity, a legal right they have had for 35 years. Meanwhile more than 200 men every year who face false claims will continue to have their reputations damaged. Victims of false claims such as snooker player Quinten Hann, who was acquitted in 2002, have seen their lives derailed by false accusations.

The reverse is embarrassing for David Cameron, who endorsed plans to give men anonymity between arrest and charge at Prime Minister’s Question Time in June. But even that limited protection was ditched yesterday. In a ministerial statement yesterday, Mr Blunt said: ‘The Coalition Government made it clear from the outset that it would proceed with defendant anonymity in rape cases only if the evidence justifying it was clear and sound, and in the absence of any such finding it has reached the conclusion that the proposal does not stand on its merits.’

Mr Blunt said there was not enough evidence to overcome concerns that ‘the inability to publicise a person’s identity will prevent further witnesses to a known offence from coming forward, or further unknown offences by the same person from coming to light’.

Officials say Attorney General Dominic Grieve has been a supporter of the policy of anonymity for men. But one source said Mr Blunt and his boss, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, had taken ‘the path of least resistance’ by abandoning the plans.

The policy was included in the coalition agreement because the Tories (Republicans) believed it was formal Lib Dem policy before the election, but Nick Clegg’s party claimed to be surprised by the inclusion. The plan created a backlash in Westminster from feminist Labour MPs.

Shadow minister for women and equality Yvette Cooper said: ‘It was a deeply unfair plan to single out rape defendants to remain anonymous and would have sent a message to juries and to victims that uniquely in rape cases the victim should not be believed.’

But George McAulay, of the UK Men’s Movement pressure group, said: ‘I can’t say I’m surprised by this because the feminist lobby is extremely powerful.’

SOURCE: UK Daily Mail, November 13th 2010

To us, the climb-down comes as no surprise. Anglo-American misandry perennially sprouts across the Anglosphere, whatever the political weather. While it may be beaten back awhile, it always returns: for misandry is the default agenda of any puritanical culture.

Sunday, 7 November 2010

Stamping out 'Hate Crime' is a prominent political theme across the English-speaking world. Hatred of ethnic or religious groups, homosexuals and even the disabled is now strictly illegal. The following description of Hate Crime is taken from the British Home Office's official website (although analogous homilies can doubtless be found across the Anglosphere):

A hate crime is any criminal offense that is motivated by hostility or prejudice based upon the victim’s:

All hate crime is important. No hate crime is too minor to report to the police. Anyone can be the victim of a hate crime. We all have a racial identity, all have a sexual orientation, all have some sort of beliefs. Anyone of us could be targeted because of some aspect of our identity. Tackling hate crime supports each and every one of us.

Hate crime is different to other forms of crime:

* hate crime targets people because of their identity. It is a form of discrimination that infringes human rights and keeps people from enjoying the full benefits of our society * research has shown that hate crimes cause greater psychological harm than similar crimes without a motivation of prejudice * hate crime creates fear in victims, groups and communities and encourages communities to turn on each other

If the Anglobitch Thesis is true (which it is), the Anglosphere must have an inherent, all-pervasive hatred of men that undercuts these lofty pronouncements. And this is exactly what we find. For while Hate Crime is prohibited by each Anglo-American national state, pan-anglosphere misandry is actively promoted by each state against its male citizens.

Examples? We do not have to look far. The Murdochratic media ceaseless vilifies men as outcasts, misfits and sexual deviants while exalting women as paragons of virtue, beauty and intellect. This anti-male propaganda is at least as relentless as the Nazi media campaign against the Jews - but even more insidious, since its agendas are covert and unstated. As Gauleiter Julius Streicher observed: "The steady drip hollows the stone." And, as in the Third Reich, hatred of the outcast group (in this case, men) has been fully normalized since the rise of gender-feminism in the late sixties.

Misandry is also enshrined in Anglo-American law. In its practical application, the law invariably delivers pro-female outcomes, with women usually receiving half the male sentence for the same offense. Moreover, divorce laws are absurdly biased in favor of women, with the male frequently reduced to penury or suicide by the courts' shameless misandry. The fact that many Anglo-American women consciously plan for a 'starter marriage' to fleece some unsuspecting male proves that malicious misandry is rapidly becoming a female lifestyle-choice.

In Anglophone nations with extensive welfare programs such as Britain, the deployment of welfare invariably favors women, despite men contributing the overwhelming bulk of taxes. Over 90% of homeless persons are male. Moreover, the British National Health Service spends vast sums on female-specific health issues like breast cancer. By contrast, male-specific health issues such as suicide receive little recognition, let alone funding. In the United States, males have to register for the draft to be eligible for certain state scholarships. By contrast, women (who already reap the benefits of a female-biased education system) do not. Indeed, draft-registration is still nominally compulsory for all American males, despite them being tacitly viewed as Untermenschen by law, government and the media.

In light of the foregoing discussion, it must be said that males represent the primary victims of 'hate crime' across the Anglosphere. Despite this, all the noble pronouncements about the need to 'eradicate hate' never address the cloying misandry endemic in Anglo-American institutions.

This is a telling omission that strongly confirms the Anglobitch Thesis. While the Anglosphere nations can redress repressive race, class and creed agendas, misandry is too deeply embedded in Anglo-Saxon culture (as a function of its puritanical ethos) to be similarly challenged. Indeed, to do so would effectively disparage the entire conceptual thrust of Anglo culture, which is why we can never trust our governments or other formal institutions to defend male interests.

It is also telling that the only male groups effectively protected by pan-Anglosphere hate-crime laws are gays and transsexuals. This is entirely to be expected: such males simulate the female role which, as we have endlessly observed, is routinely and blindly exalted by Anglo-Saxon culture. When the only way for men to achieve protection from 'hate crime' is to adopt homosexuality (or female genitalia) the true nature of Anglo 'patriarchy' reveals itself. Only women and their mincing mimics can enter that charmed circle; the healthy, potent male never can.

Monday, 1 November 2010

Where do we start with this one? The Judge in the case is clearly an aged White Knight steeped in the Anglo-Saxon myth of female moral infallibility. Indeed, it is only with considerable reluctance that he jails her at all, even after almost ruining a man's life. He then uses the case to exalt 'authentic' rape victims - when this very case surely casts doubt on the veracity of all female rape claims. The Judge also suggests this slack-mouthed harridan is somehow acting 'out of character' - when, as we all know, vituperative misandry is the true core of the Anglobitch.

It is also notable how Woodhead reflexively avoids all responsibility for her crimes, even blaming her former partner for her sordid career as a prostitute. Seldom was the well-worn Anglobitch agenda of 'privileges without responsibilities' more shamelessly displayed:

A woman who falsely claimed her ex-boyfriend raped her after giving her a Pringles sandwich laced with diazepam was jailed for three years today.

Kate Woodhead, 31, carried out her "devious" revenge against Paul Joseph after he told her their 18-month relationship was over, Guildford Crown Court was told. Woodhead, who ran livery stables in Surrey, went to police with a friend in April 2009 and told them Mr Joseph had drugged her before attacking her.

She then stole belongings of his worth about £25,000, including an expensive stereo and art prints, and transferred ownership of his Porsche 911 sports car and BMW motorcycle to her own name, intending to sell them. Mr Joseph was arrested and questioned by police but the rape allegation was dropped when officers became suspicious that Woodhead had made it up. She was then arrested herself and was found guilty after a three-week trial.

Judge Neil Stewart told Woodhead, who remained impassive during the sentencing, that the offence was so serious he had no option other than to send her to prison.

He said: "It seems to clear to me that the implication of the jury's verdict is that they accepted the prosecution's case, which was that the offences which form the indictment were all part of a deliberate, and indeed vindictive, campaign waged by you against Mr Joseph as retribution against him in order to secure personal gain for yourself. These offences therefore must be seen as devious and manipulative and you are wholly unrepentant."

Woodhead, of Bracken Lodge in Wisley, Ripley, Surrey, had denied perverting the course of justice, two counts of theft and one of fraud by abuse of position, but was convicted by a jury earlier this year. The court also heard that Woodhead falsely claimed her former partner had entered her details on a prostitution website.

Judge Stewart told Woodhead during the sentencing: "You claimed you were enrolled by him on a prostitution website when the evidence strongly showed that it was you who did that as a means of making some additional income."

The judge told Woodhead that falsely accusing a man of rape can have "very serious" consequences, not only for him but for genuine rape victims. He said cases such as Woodhead's may make a jury more reluctant to convict a man of rape, as it could put doubts in their mind.

The three-year sentence given to Woodhead for perverting the course of justice was intended to act partly as a "deterrent", Judge Stewart added. She had shown a "different side" to her character, leaving her friends and relatives "surprised, astonished and appalled", he said.

Woodhead, who had no previous convictions, was sentenced to a total of 12 months for the theft offences and three months for the fraud. The sentences will run at the same time as the three-year sentence for perverting the course of justice.

Mr Joseph was arrested in May 2009, with the case referred to the Crown Prosecution Service that July. It was the beginning of September the same year that he was told no charges were to be brought.

Speaking after Woodhead was sentenced, IT consultant Mr Joseph said: "I spent most of the year not working. You can't work being on bail. They may say it was £25,000 of items, but it was everything I owned."

None of Mr Joseph's belongings were recovered, the court was told.

He said he thought the sentence was "about right", and added: "She stooped pretty low. I've just got to get on. At the end of the day, she brought it upon herself. Relationships end every day. If someone wants to walk away, you've got to respect it."

Friday, 22 October 2010

Domestic abuse is a 'hot topic' in the MRA community these days. Why, at this very minute, Paul Elam and David Futrelle are engaged in torrid debate over the 'whys and wherefores' of domestic violence (check out 'A Voice for Men' on my Bloglist). Of course, their fascinating debate will grind on indefinitely, since both parties are dependent on social 'scientists' for their information, and sociology is not a science. Indeed, as my regular readers will know, sociology tends to attract extrovert-unstable personality types more interested in advancing personal agendas than seeking objective truth. In a few areas such as education or consumer behaviour, where vast amounts of published electronic data exist, sociology has some interpretive validity. However, domestic violence is not one of these areas (in fact, crime is not - most crime is not reported or recorded). I would submit that even the most rigorous sociological enquiry into this murky, ill-reported area can produced no conclusions not heavily inflected by the pre-existing assumptions of the researchers.

Given the limitations of sociological research, I prefer to follow Sir Karl Popper in my own methodology - that is, presenting a case that definitively refutes a prevailing climate of opinion. In the Anglosphere, 'women can do no wrong' is equivalent to the statement 'all swans are white': that is, universally accepted 'common sense'. The statement stands as valid until a black swan is found, whereupon it is either qualified or dismissed. Well, I'm sure Clare Nichols is quite sufficient to forever refute the Murdocratic assumption that all women are flawless:

TWO people are today starting life sentences after being found guilty of the brutal torture murder of a man at the home they shared in County Durham.

Clare Nicholls, 28, will serve a minimum 32 years for the torture and murder of her patrner Andrew Gardner and her brother, Simon Nicholls, 24, will serve a minimum 25 years. Her on-off lover Steven Martin, 44, is also facing a life term. He will be sentenced in February following the results of tests by a psychiatrist.

Mr Gardner’s battered and burnt body had more than 120 injuries on it when paramedics found him in his living room on March 13 last year. The 35-year-old had been starved, whipped, scalded, slashed, kicked and punched before he died in agony from a catalogue of horrific injuries.

Doctors found he had suffered 21 rib fractures and associated tissue damage as well as a fractured skull, bleeding on the brain and blood poisoning. Crude abuse had been scrawled on his back in nail varnish, and marks on his torso were described in court as “a grotesque game of noughts and crosses”.

His girlfriend, her brother and her former lover denied murder but were this afternoon convicted by a jury at the end of a harrowing three-week trial. Nicholls shook her head, laid it on a glass barrier in the dock and wept when the verdict was announced, but the two men showed no reaction.

The court heard how Clare Nicholls ruled the home in Arthur Street, Chilton, and how the men of the household were terrified of her temper. She repeatedly attacked Mr Gardner – the father of her youngest child – for what she saw as him being lazy or “stealing” food from the cupboards.

Some jurors wept during the trial as they heard how children saw the punishment beatings and, at times, were encouraged to join in.

Nicholls’ brother and Martin – an ex-lover who moved into the house three weeks before Mr Gardner’s death and reignited an affair – also helped. They later told police that Nicholls was the instigator and they were too frightened to stop the attacks in case she turned her violence towards them.

On March 13 last year, Simon Nicholls made a 999 call, saying Mr Gardner had returned home half-an-hour earlier and collapsed unconscious. He told paramedics that Mr Gardner said he had been beaten up by a gang while out for a walk, and was complaining about severe back pain. The story quickly raised doubts and police were called in, and a lengthy investigation followed – which resulted in the three being arrested.

A series of medical examinations showed that many of Mr Gardner’s injuries had been inflicted days – if not weeks or months – before he died. The suspects were released on bail, but were re-arrested and charged with murder in July when the results of the tests were received by police. Clare Nicholls pleaded guilty to manslaughter at the end of the prosecution case, but the plea was not accepted and she was forced into the witness box.

She confessed to inflicting “the best part” of Mr Gardner’s injuries, but also blamed her brother for some of the rib fractures and other beatings.

Martin was accused of “branding” Mr Gardner with a white-hot cigarette lighter, and scalding his feet and leg with boiling water from a kettle. He also owned up to repeatedly holding his lover’s boyfriend against a piping hot radiator for up to 20 seconds, causing three separate burns.

The court heard how the rib fractures were probably caused when former charity shop worker Nicholls jumped on her partner with her knees. A pathologist told the jury that the injuries were the kind usually associated with victims of car crashes or falls from “considerable” heights.

Prosecutors are seeking a 30-year starting point for the killers, but defence teams will argue this afternoon that the tariff should not be as high as that. The jurors who heard the harrowing details of Andrew Gardner's death will be spared jury service for the next 20 years.

Judge Peter Fox, QC, told the seven men and five women: "This has been a case of particular responsibility and heavy responsibility in its discharge. What I can decide and, indeed, pronounce my decision about, is to say as a reflection of my appreciation of the responsibility you have carried out, you are excused jury service for at least 20 years, with my thanks."

Source: the UK Northern Echo

Why did Mr Gardner not leave the abusive household? According to police, he 'adored' his young daughter. This was his main reason for remaining, although it ultimately meant his own death. Such is the current state of the Anglosphere: for maintaining the father's traditional protective role, a man can face ignominy and murder with the tacit approval of the state.